leagueoflegendsfandomcom-20200222-history
Forum:Wiki Review 1
Hello everyone! I have decided to have a wiki recap every 3 months so that we all have a consensus on certain things around here. This forum is meant to help us determine a few things that the community needs input on. The subjects may be from the past as well. There will be a list of voting sections here. Don't be afraid to vote for what you want. Thanks guys! 07:31, 8/3/2011 Voting Rollback Editor Highlight (Approved) This one was one I definitely want to take a re-vote on. I personally think rollbacks should have a highlight. Although they only have an extra button, they are apart of our users with rights. I was wondering if we should re-add the rollback highlight. 07:31, 8/3/2011 Voting will end on August 10, 2011. Support # 07:31, 8/3/2011 # This makes no difference of what a rollback does but i feel rollbacks would like some kind of recognition for holding the all-mighty button. --LoLisNumbaWan 07:34, August 3, 2011 (UTC) # I think that if you are going to give someone a responsibility then it should be obvious that they have it. I am not a fan of secret police. I would abstain because it seems self-serving, but I would give up my position to get it restored. Asperon Thorn 17:48, August 3, 2011 (UTC) # 18:37, August 4, 2011 (UTC) # Paul Levesque 20:30, August 4, 2011 (UTC) # [[User:TehAnonymous|'TehAnonymous']] 20:39, August 4, 2011 (UTC) #>_< Demise101 >_< 23:54, August 4, 2011 (UTC) # D3Reap3R 22:41, August 6, 2011 (UTC) # baoz 04:48, August 7, 2011 (UTC) Neutral # this makes me ask myself: If it's just a simple button that allows for 'Undo' type changes, Why not remove rollback editors and give all registered users this function? Solves this discussion alltogether aswell since users dont get highlights either. Deshiba 14:10, August 5, 2011 (UTC) :: Maybe I don't get the rollback function though, but registered users can allready see made changes and "undo" them manually... So what's the difference if all a rollback editor has extra, is a little button that does it automatically?O.o Deshiba 14:27, August 5, 2011 (UTC) ::: Personally, the reason every registered user does not have rollback is that it would lead to a high amount of misuse with it. Rollback, as a tool, is only to be used to revert obvious vandalism, not as a faster undo button. 12:53, August 7, 2011 (UTC) 2. Same as Deshiba's second paragraph. Zaroph 12:29, August 7, 2011 (UTC) Oppose # 14:34, August 3, 2011 (UTC) # Definitely not --BBilge 17:40, August 3, 2011 (UTC) # I like how half of the people who opposed it the last time around aren't here for this one, it's a glorified undo button, there's no purpose for them to have a highlight because they CAN NOT PERFORM ADMINISTRATIVE TASKS, there's a reason why mods+ have it, they can actually help people who have problems, rollbacks can't. It's false advertising giving them a highlight. Also, from the last discussion on this: The colors are used to distinguish between users with certain access rights. Although rollbacks have one additional tool then others they are not able to perform administrative tasks therefore allowing them a highlight would serve no purpose. I don't think a user needs to know who has rollbacks rights as, in a hypothetical situation, won't see the need in a user contacting a rollback simply to request them save time to revert an edit rather than themselves undoing it. It's simply used to distinguish between users who can offer additional aid to others. :: 20:45, August 4, 2011 (UTC) # see comments below. -- 00:20, August 11, 2011 (UTC) #'No'. Not needed. 04:58, August 7, 2011 (UTC) New and Improved Content Directors (Approved) I have been thinking about this for a while now. I was wondering if we should re-add this position but with a couple extra things as well. Of course the highlight and rollback, but I think they should have the right to rename/move files for situations they need to for their content and they should have chat moderator status. 07:31, 8/3/2011 Voting will end on August 12, 2011. Support # 07:31, 8/3/2011 # Same as what i said for rollbacks. --LoLisNumbaWan 07:35, August 3, 2011 (UTC) # 18:37, August 4, 2011 (UTC) # D3Reap3R 22:41, August 6, 2011 (UTC) # baoz 04:50, August 7, 2011 (UTC) Neutral # In other words an admin. --BBilge 17:40, August 3, 2011 (UTC) Oppose # 14:34, August 3, 2011 (UTC) # No point, if they want the right to move files then they should apply for moderator rights. 20:46, August 4, 2011 (UTC) BBilge, Moderator is definitely a lot closer to admin than this would be. They wouldn't be able to block users, delete/edit comments, or edit blogs. And I am aware you know the rest of administrative rights that are out there compared to this. 04:25, 8/5/2011 :My point wasn't to dispute the differences between admin and moderator; just that . --BBilge 14:46, August 5, 2011 (UTC) Removal of Badges (Approved) Most of you may be wondering why I, out of everyone want the badges to be removed. First off, in my opinion, they aren't something positive to our wiki. They are a way for editors to explore certain pages, however that's the only good thing about them. I think if users really wanted to be rewarded, we can have our admins reward users they notice improving the wiki with user boxes. The achievements have their own reason to block a vandal (farming). This one will take a lot of consideration, so please do so. 07:31, 8/3/2011 Voting will end on August 19, 2011. Support # 07:31, 8/3/2011 # Attracts the wrong crowd. --BBilge 17:40, August 3, 2011 (UTC) # 18:37, August 4, 2011 (UTC) # Silly achievements are silly. Deshiba 13:52, August 5, 2011 (UTC) # # baoz 04:55, August 7, 2011 (UTC) # 00:03, August 19, 2011 (UTC) Neutral # Sticking to my neutral vote since last time. --LoLisNumbaWan 07:37, August 3, 2011 (UTC) # User boxes sound equally awesome [[User:TehAnonymous|'TehAnonymous']] 20:39, August 4, 2011 (UTC) # I don't really know. They do look good enough to try to edit anything you can just to earn it, but you can warn such an user and ban him. And badges does not grant you any rights or benefits at all. MatthewRock 16:29, August 6, 2011 (UTC) # For one, I see value in achievements for the simple fact of people "trying to achieve something with their efforts". They are badges for the eyes and candy for the satisfaction. However, it also is not fully useful as we should revamp the badges in the first place if using them. My opinion. D3Reap3R 22:47, August 6, 2011 (UTC) Oppose # The Almighty Wikipedia uses badges. Why shouldn't we? Barnstar badges Asperon Thorn 17:49, August 3, 2011 (UTC) # The minor negatives ('attracts the wrong crowd') can be negated with bans and such and are, imo, greatly outweighed by the fact that they encourage the anons to create accounts and to contribute. : 14:34, August 3, 2011 (UTC) :Comment Isn't this about achievements? I've never seen badges on this site. --BBilge 18:09, August 3, 2011 (UTC) ::Call them what you want, they are close enough to the same for me. Asperon Thorn 18:41, August 3, 2011 (UTC) :@ Texas - I understand part of your statement, however it sounds like you just said that anons create accounts for badges. I think if people really wanted to create accounts, it would be to help content and interact with the community more, that's just me however I respect your decision. 23:38, 8/4/2011 : " The Almighty Wikipedia uses badges. Why shouldn't we?" Just because someone else does it is not a good enough reason to copy it for 1. Secondly they do invite a lot of unnecesary edits that do not improve pages. And third and final, there are badges out there that are either silly or not obtainable anymore because a category got removed (remembered the last one from the previous discussion about it O.o). Deshiba 13:52, August 5, 2011 (UTC) : " they encourage the anons to create accounts" Funny, I've made a lot of edits as anon... yet I only became aware of the existance after I HAD TO create an account to use chat. It's a non-argument. Deshiba 13:52, August 5, 2011 (UTC) Enabling Wikia Editor Redesign (Declined) I know that most of you may not know about this, but we should have consensus on it either way. This would just change our editing layout to a completely different thing. for more information, go here. 07:31, 8/3/2011 Voting will end on August 10, 2011. Support # Neutral # I don't really know what this is about and cant be bothered to read up on it. <- lazy bum Deshiba 13:54, August 5, 2011 (UTC) # Oppose # 07:31, 8/3/2011 # Until output reformatting has been checked. --BBilge 17:40, August 3, 2011 (UTC) # 18:37, August 4, 2011 (UTC) # It's disgusting, that's why it wasn't put in before. 20:47, August 4, 2011 (UTC) # I think we should......not have a redisgn. --LoLisNumbaWan 00:34, August 5, 2011 (UTC) # We have good persons actively able to work on the design; if output is not reformatted, I oppose it for now. D3Reap3R 22:47, August 6, 2011 (UTC) # I personally do not like the interface, it looks unnecessarily complex and harder to use. Zaroph 12:34, August 7, 2011 (UTC) Wiki Theme Design (Approved) Our wiki is currently grey and black. This is certainly something in need of consensus. I was wondering if we should change the theme back to navy/dark blue as it was before. This new color scheme makes the wiki look a bit boring in my opinion. 07:31, 8/3/2011 Voting will end on August 13, 2011. Support # 07:31, 8/3/2011 # OK --LoLisNumbaWan 07:38, August 3, 2011 (UTC) # I want it back to being dark blue. 18:37, August 4, 2011 (UTC) Neutral # It is still black/navy. Nothing changed. --BBilge 17:40, August 3, 2011 (UTC) # I personally don't really care as long as the information is readable it's ok either way. Unless it's pink, pink makes me leave this wiki and never come back. Deshiba 14:01, August 5, 2011 (UTC) # You can change if you want or keep it as you please. I'm fine with it the way it is. Also, I can change the background as required on request. D3Reap3R 22:38, August 6, 2011 (UTC) Oppose # I think that current version of wiki is great. Black bacground helps in reading. Orange, green and grey letters are easy to read with black background. And every colour match with black:) btw. vote without signature above lol.MatthewRock 16:35, August 6, 2011 (UTC) Suggestion Whenever you vote on IF you want to change styles, it might be helpfull to allready have an alternate style ready for example. We could ask our friends over at that LoL fansite to hold a little contest to redesign our wiki¿?¿? Just a suggestion though, but if you do something like that you have a much clearer and solid picture of what you agree to change the website into. : after all you might not like the current style, but you might not like the future style either :S Deshiba 14:01, August 5, 2011 (UTC) :Strongly agree. That's why I put together a proof of concept for the main page instead of just talking about it. --BBilge 14:49, August 5, 2011 (UTC) :This is regarding the color scheme, not style/background image. The fansite would be useless in this situation. 12:44, August 7, 2011 (UTC) Rollback Improvement (Approved) I highly support the idea of giving chat moderator status to our rollbacks. I mean all they have is the button and they can't do anything about vandals in chat. 07:31, 8/3/2011 Voting will end on August 11, 2011. Support # 07:31, 8/3/2011 # Just another button just like the rollback button but called kickban. --LoLisNumbaWan 07:39, August 3, 2011 (UTC) # 18:37, August 4, 2011 (UTC) # [[User:TehAnonymous|'TehAnonymous']] 20:39, August 4, 2011 (UTC) Neutral # I never use the chat. Asperon Thorn 17:50, August 3, 2011 (UTC) # I would personally remove rollback editors altogether as its not really an addition to the wiki... Deshiba 15:43, August 6, 2011 (UTC) # Not much on the chat. If active users think it is necessary, I go with their vote. D3Reap3R 22:44, August 6, 2011 (UTC) Oppose # 14:34, August 3, 2011 (UTC) # 20:49, August 4, 2011 (UTC) So if I said I think they should have it, then what would your choice be? 23:15, 8/6/2011 : This is less an issue of "you say it is right, so I go with it." but more of a "many people say it's good; most of them use it actively" thing. My main problem is, that I am not active on the chat and therefore can not properly judge the necessity of the feature. Let's rephrase it this way: If there are valid reasons for keeping or removing it, I'd go with it. Plain and simple as that. D3Reap3R 11:28, August 7, 2011 (UTC) The LoL Fan Site Portal (Declined) We have decided not to have a partnership with them, however I think a portal between the two websites wouldn't hurt. I want to have more consensus on this. 07:31, 8/3/2011 # O.o shiny portal!!!! --LoLisNumbaWan 07:42, August 3, 2011 (UTC) Neutral # I gave the option. Thus, I am holding my vote on this one for obvious reasons. D3Reap3R 22:44, August 6, 2011 (UTC) Oppose # There are a number of sites worth partnering with but this is not one of them. --BBilge 17:40, August 3, 2011 (UTC) # I don't even feel the need to restate reasons for this. Asperon Thorn 17:52, August 3, 2011 (UTC) # 18:37, August 4, 2011 (UTC) # 20:49, August 4, 2011 (UTC) # Wiki doesn't need any advertising. Their site probably does. Wiki should be neutral, we don't need it. MatthewRock 16:38, August 6, 2011 (UTC) # Discussion/Comments * Imo, every vote that was on these discussions should be transferred over in the case that the one who voted is not here to vote now (Mostly Aj, Zelga, and Nystus, and possibly D3 and Kaz, depending on their activity). 20:53, August 4, 2011 (UTC) ** I think the votes should be added at a reduced validity (70%) only once the date of consensus is reached. After all if they are not here we can't assume the votes remained the same with certaintity and they can't be worth the same as the people who remain active at the wiki. 21:08, August 4, 2011 (UTC) ** I read on Zelga's profile that he has stopped contributing to this wiki and i feel he will not be here for this consensus. --LoLisNumbaWan 23:17, August 4, 2011 (UTC) **I agree and disagree with Neon's statement. I mean yes their votes do mean a lot, however they haven't contributed in a while so we can't just add assumptions. 23:32, 8/4/2011 **# You cannot count votes from people that aren't here. Should I start casting votes for my dead Grandmother as well? Zel has taken his proverbial ball and gone home. Nystus may have done likewise. Regardless, if you aren't here you don't get a vote. You most certainly don't get someone else to use your name to cast a vote that precludes the possibility that they may have changed their mind, or the circumstances may have caused them to change. Asperon Thorn 17:30, August 5, 2011 (UTC) ***So, essentially, if you oppose something but it gets passed anyway just wait for some of the people who got it passed to be inactive and bring it up again, completely disregard any compelling points they made in the original discussion and abuse the system as hard as you can every 3 months when you don't get your way. Typical, also, things like the RLB highlight removal shouldn't even be a popularity vote, it affects a lot more than personal opinion (unlike color changes and the new editing interface). 16:57, August 6, 2011 (UTC) ****Err, I have to disagree. None of us knew that anyone was going to go inactive. I hadn't thought of a "recap" until last week, its not my fault other's aren't here to vote for or against it. It's not like they can't come back and vote again anyway... 17:14, 8/6/2011 ::::You should just let the bureaucrats decide how they want to run their wiki. I seldom spare any credence for the opinions given by others. --BBilge 22:49, August 6, 2011 (UTC) :::::You're kidding right? How many times to I have to repeat that there is no owner of a wiki. Crats don't "run" a wiki they manage and oversee everything. Admins don't either. If there was a certain group of people "running" the wiki, then that would be complete chaos and there would be a lot more problems than there is. 23:13, 8/6/2011 ::::::I didn't realise you felt that way about our bureaucrats. --BBilge 08:23, August 7, 2011 (UTC) :::::::I never stated my feelings about the crats right now....what you talking about? 08:29, 8/7/2011 :If people aren't here to vote then their votes don't count to any degree, but that's not really the problem: issues that are closed should not be allowed to be reopened again so soon. We can't vote on the same issues every three months. --BBilge 23:58, August 4, 2011 (UTC) ::Every 3 months is 1/4 of a year, of course we can. We get new editors all of time and people change their minds as well, therefore a need for a new consensus. I was going to say every 2 months, but every 3 months seems a lot more reasonable. 00:01, 8/5/2011 Umm, ok, as far as I understand recap is another word for summary. Why are there polls in here? Half the issues you bringing up here have already been decided upon, what is the bloody need to bring them up again? Are we going to have rollbacks highlighted every other 3 months depending on who was around to vote? Sorry, but that just sounds retarded, the issue was discussed in detail the first time, so before we take a revote I'd like to hear some significant reasoning behind why this issue is coming up again (ie several users having brought the question up to admin in recent time or similar). I don't feel like revoting on an issue again, just because some people who disagreed with the first decision wish to have their way, even though they were outvoted previously. This whole idea is just an excuse to make irresponsible decisions, like "hey if we get it wrong this time we can get to vote again anyway". What the bloody point for having community discussion and voting for issues if those decisions are effing temporary? Just have an admin decide then and have it overturn every 2 days, that sounds great! How about show some bloody respect towards people's opinions and time that was put into evaluating the issues, thinking about how decisions will affect various things on the wiki, etc. So, until there's a significant and valid reason for re-opening a past decision, I'm not planing to vote on any of it. -- 20:57, August 5, 2011 (UTC) :That couldn't get any more bloody :P Anyway, the point of this is so that the community keeps up with its consensus. I just brought up basic topics for us to re-agree on. The point of this is so that we all have an agreement on something. It wouldn't make sense to vote on something and then never discuss that topic again. There are voting sections obviously for the consensus part. And whoever said that the same topics were going to be brought up every 3 months. These topics are the ones that were brought up this recap. Also, you don't have to vote if you don't what to, but this is no place to rage. 21:08, 8/5/2011 ::I don't suggest to never discuss issues again, but I don't see the need for baseless voting ahead of having a discussion to determine that a revote is needed. If an issue needs revoting, I said this above, I'd like to see a discussion that deems it necessary. Right now, I see a bunch of people just signing their names, zero reasoning, zero thinking. Sorry my friends, that is not discussion, that is not consensus, that is just blind herding instinct. For the most part I'm agreeing with Neon, very hard. -- 14:46, August 7, 2011 (UTC) ::It's called vacation my friends :P I mostly voted neutral, though. D3Reap3R 22:48, August 6, 2011 (UTC) 8 support votes on the RLB highlight issue and no counter-argument to my fact driven oppose, yet, if we follow our outdated conventional rules it'll get passed anyway. This is why I wish Aj was here, him and his voting based off of facts and actual reasoning, not popularity votes where numbers mean more than facts. 04:54, August 7, 2011 (UTC) :Well I have noticed that people have been voting on the things that they actually know about. Many people don't even have reasoning on votes. Like Uber for example, he just signed what he thought was best, what's the difference for the RLB highlight? And not to start a problem, but a reason I support the RLB highlight is because users can tell who is a RLB or not. Sure all they have is that one button, but what is the big deal if they have a highlight, many wikis have that. 05:08, 8/7/2011 ::I already stated why, twice, in my oppose vote. 05:48, August 7, 2011 (UTC) :::Yes I know, I just wanted to expand my reasoning a bit more. 06:21, 8/7/2011 ::::So, you expanded reasoning states, it's not a big deal, let them have highlight. By that same reasoning we can say, if it's not a big deal they can make due without a highlight. -- 01:15, August 11, 2011 (UTC) :Still haven't had anyone even attempt to refute my points, yet it passes, how detestable. I might as well just flip a coin to choose my side in future situations like this, at least then I won't have to think beyond what normal editors do as to how a change might actually affect the wiki, and my vote would still count as much as anyone else's. 07:08, August 11, 2011 (UTC) ::This is exactly why I think this whole "revote" idea is downright retarded. We doing a popularity contest rather than evaluation of issue. 80% of these issues were already decided... -- 00:12, August 16, 2011 (UTC) Also, the wiki theme discussion was TO GET RID OF THE BLACK, not put on this god awful blue border thing we have going. I made a lovely blue theme that was light on the eyes but it was reverted. For the two side by side go here: http://i56.tinypic.com/f277o0.png 01:05, August 16, 2011 (UTC) As a side note, one of the main reasons I support removing the badges is because of the mess up we had regarding the summoner badges. I however will bring up the issue again once I contact wikia about the badges reseting. 03:04, 8/19/2011